From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Rick Otten <rottenwindfish@gmail.com>, ronan.dunklau@dalibo.com,
        PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>,
        Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: your mail
In-reply-to: <20170808201838.vt5lyujd3fvgtxyq@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20170808194943.smet3uuvtxats44v@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <15541.1502223315@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20170808201838.vt5lyujd3fvgtxyq@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Tue, 08 Aug 2017 13:18:38 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <17590.1502226734.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:12:14 -0400
Message-ID: <17591.1502226734@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-08-08 16:15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't see much of a way to do that in the "typical" case where
>> the library load happens as a result of a SQL command.  You can't
>> just say "oh, we're not in a transaction" and then later "wait,
>> yes we are".

> Transaction seems hard, but setting CurrentMemoryContext = NULL during
> library load seems quite possible. And that'll cause a lot of code that
> assumes an in-progress transaction to fail.

And it would cause a lot of code that *doesn't* assume that to fail,
too.  That has basically nothing to do with not being in a transaction,
so I don't think it would be helpful here.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs